# Nitpicking
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 21, 2006, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458 "2006-02-21T11:58:55Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2006, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458/1 "2006-02-21T11:58:55Z")
Inspired by the early exchanges in [New Pics of ‘Hazing’ at Abu Ghraib](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=358957).
As far as I’m concerned, accusations of nitpicking constitute throwing in the towel. Nitpicking is one of those accusations of convenience, like unfairness or oversimplification, that is an offense only when it is used by someone else. Frankly, it is an exercise in nitpicking to call nitpicking — it is like an elitist calling a redneck a bigot. It is an admission that the opponent’s argument holds because it is a self-condemning claim that the opponent’s argument would fail were it not for some picayune technicality. Condemnation by the subjunctive.
The N-word is flung around all too casually. It seems to cover everything from a simple typo to such basic conceptual necessities as definitions. “You mean you hold that A is different from B? Why, that’s just nitpicking. They’re both letters!” And it is not uncommon that both sides will load the N-canon and fire. One picks apart the other’s grammar while the the second picks apart the first’s scheme of classification.
Is it not better to concede the point when the point is right, and then emphasize that there is something more important to consider than the point made than it is to dismiss the point summarily as something somehow false when in fact it is true?
---
### Author:  [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2006, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458/2 "2006-02-21T13:06:31Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Is it not better to concede the point when the point is right, and then emphasize that there is something more important to consider than the point made than it is to dismiss the point summarily as something somehow false when in fact it is true?
I think the answer to that depends on _why_ you’re debating in the first place. It’s been my experience that some people debate to _understand_, some to _win_, and some to _impress_.
Only the first group would answer your question with a resounding yes, and in the heat of debate, even they might find themselves slipping into one of the other camps. Egos are extremely efficient at blurring the line between important clarification and cheap, distracting gambit.
---
### Author:  [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2006, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458/3 "2006-02-21T13:46:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> As far as I’m concerned, accusations of nitpicking constitute throwing in the towel.
> \
> Is it not better to concede the point when the point is right, and then emphasize that there is something more important to consider than the point made than it is to dismiss the point summarily as something somehow false when in fact it is true?
While I agree totally with the last part, I disagree nearly as strongly with the first. Rather, I see nitpicking in general as a type of _red herring_ fallacy; even if the nit being picked is true/correct (which should be conceded immediately and graciously), it often does nothing more than serve as a distraction from the main argument.
Of course, that’s not always the case – in some instances, the nits being picked _do_ have ramifications on the broader point. Speaking reflexively, it is akin to arguing an analogy – showing where an analogy is unsuitable requires a sense of relevance. Analogical situations may differ in both relevant and irrelevant ways; IMHO, most nitpicking is of the latter type and has little bearing on the thrust of an argument.
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2006, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458/4 "2006-02-21T15:45:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> The N-word is flung around all too casually.
Hmmm…
[example]
> [@hypothetical poster A](#):
>
> Using that phrase attempts to co-opt and lessen the legacy of injustice and racism directed towards African Americans. It also seeks to imply by association that nitpicking is somehow as great a sin as racism and that the person being accused of nitpicking is as sorely put upon as an African American is when being discriminated against and called a nigger.
> [@hypothetical poster B](#):
>
> Your use of the phrase “African Americans” betrays a lack of cultural sensitivity and a willingness to engage in PC mumbo jumbo. Not all people with dark skin come directly from Africa, nor would many claim that their identity is a mixed one of Africanness and Americanness any more than someone whose relatives came from Sweeden 200 years ago would call themselves Sweedish American.
> [@hypothetical poster C](#):
>
> In any case, you’re both wrong as many within the black community refer to themselves with the appellation “niggah”. Obviously it is no longer as offensive as calling it “the N-word” would lead us to believe.
> [@hypothetical poster D](#):
>
> Weren’t we talking about something else? What was the subject of the OP? Was it something about nitpicking? Anyways, let’s continue talking about political correctness and scientific theories of race and population dynamics.
[/example]
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458/5 "2006-02-21T20:11:35Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#):
>
> While I agree totally with the last part, I disagree nearly as strongly with the first. Rather, I see nitpicking in general as a type of _red herring_ fallacy; even if the nit being picked is true/correct (which should be conceded immediately and graciously), it often does nothing more than serve as a distraction from the main argument.
Which I believe was the case with the Bricker example. He made a clearly factual statement that evidence against the personnel involved could not be taken from the photos only. And against evasive responses, he repeated himself. Suddenly, the charges of nitpicking began, seeming to me to indicate the aforementioned throwing in of the towel — i.e., since Bricker has made a valid point, I will concede it by attempting to make his point pointless, or a red herring. And in fact, it isn’t a red herring at all. After all, if you were defending yourself in a court of law against a doctored photograph, you might not appreciate the prosecution telling the jury that you’re nitpicking by saying that the photo proves nothing about what you did.
---
### Author:  [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2006, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458/6 "2006-02-22T07:23:16Z")
Ah. I was responding to the bulk of the OP, not to the linked thread. Specifically, this:
> [@](#):
>
> As far as I’m concerned, accusations of nitpicking constitute throwing in the towel.
which seemed to me to be a blanket condemnation. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
---
### Author:  [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2006, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nitpicking/345458/7 "2006-02-22T12:38:05Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Frankly, it is an exercise in nitpicking to call nitpicking
Since as far as you are concerned, accusations of nitpicking constitute throwing in the towel, I guess we can end this debate right here. Better luck next time.